Despite popular belief, directors are not masters of their domain. Film is a collaborative medium and a director’s ‘vision’ is as fluid to many variables. While there are notorious examples of production interfering with directors, these are rare instances. Most films that are poorly executed are flawed to begin with in pre-production. The advent of home entertainment opened the gates for director’s cuts, real cuts made from existing footage previously edited out. They reached the peak of popularity at the hight of DVD marketing when special features and extra footage was a selling point for collectors. “Director’s cut” became a label you could slap on a product to milk an extra few bucks out of an existing product.

True director’s cuts are just early edits, and while theatrical cuts tend to pander to cinemas with time formats, most director’s cuts are arguably self-indulgent; recovering excised scenes that weren’t necessary to begin with.

Now we have the Snyder cut scenario which is not a true director’s cut because it is not constructed with existing footage alone. No other film has had this luxury before. It is a unique situation but the desired outcome is not. WB just wants to milk what they can out of a product. Who knows if the juice will be worth the squeeze?

Schumacher was a director who didn’t understand or respect the property of Batman and took the job for the paycheque. I watched a doco on the company they produced Superman 4. They made B list schlock who tried to cash in on a big name. The company went bust long ago, and certainly not because the vision of their trash movies was compromised in the editing room.

You raise many good points, Arise Etrigan. And I agree with much of what you say. Ultimately, the decision to release a director's cut, assembly cut, Snyder Cut, or whatever you want to call it comes down to the studio heads. And I'm well aware that their decision is purely an economic one. But that doesn't invalidate the content that is offered in these alternate cuts. I concede that most director's cuts are probably just added filler that wasn't wholly necessary to the story. And I'm willing to go a step further and theorize that a "Furie Cut" of Superman 4 would go in that category.

But then there are cases like the "Schumacher Cut," the "Ayer Cut," and most extremely the Snyder Cut. Cases where, while uncommon to this degree, there is meddling which causes the original creative vision of the film to be compromised. Whether or not these alternate cuts end up being good is not my concern; I know that many directors aren't going to put together a flawless masterpiece no matter how promising their intent may seem. I'm sure the Schumacher and Furie cuts would have their own set of problems. But I don't care about that stuff. If they're bad, I will criticize them as I would any other bad movie. But ultimately, I will still be grateful that those versions of the film are out there to be seen.

All directors, whether good or bad, are artists, as film is classified as an art form. As is the case with any painter or sculptor, even if their work is self-indulgent or pretentious or just plain bad, they deserve to have their work seen

Everyone does not “deserve” to have their “art” shown. It’s a privilege to be recognised as an artist, not a right. Directors do get their work seen. A director’s cut is simply an extension of that. Truely disgruntled directors whose artistic licence has been taken away or inhibited to an unreasonable amount don’t get the opportunity to show their intended vision. No director’s cut can salvage a doomed property. That’s why Alan Smithee used to exist for those rare instances when a director wanted to disown a picture.

A director’s cut of Batman Forever isn’t going to change actors’ performances, the campy script or the horrendous art direction. Schumacher made a bad Batman film then went on to make another which, not only didn’t learn from it’s mistakes but doubled down on them.

Good artists know their medium. Studio directors know they have certain parameters to work within from the outset. A bad craftsman doesn’t blame his tools. A director can’t enter a studio contract to make a 120 min film and then complain when he can’t have a final cut of 140 mins. There are various variables that will invariably vary the course of production, but you start with a sound foundation long before shooting starts. Directors that start whining about what their final cut should have been really need to answer as to how it got to that point.

Although there are definitely a few films out there that have been mutilated by a studio and have benefited from a director's full vision. Blade Runner and Once Upon a Time in America automatically come to mind.

Arise Etrigan, all I can say to that is that I simply don't agree that showcasing the director's full vision is a privilege and not a right. That's just how I view things like this, but I understand where you're coming from and why you feel the way you do

Yes, two films out of how many thousands? Two films by two genuinely talented directors. As I said, there are films that benefit, and these are true director’s cuts made with completed footage. The two films in question were also good films as theatrical releases, both critically and financially. The director’s cut are just cherries on top.

The above hypothetical director’s cuts the OP mentioned are not in the same league. Not sure even in the same game.

Respectfully, Arise Etrigan, I have to say that to the best of my knowledge, both Blade Runner and Once Upon A Time In America were neither critically nor financially successful at their initial release. Once Upon A Time was a box office bomb, only making $5 million against a $30 million budget; critics and audiences alike hated it at the time. As for Blade Runner, it underperformed at the box office and just barely made back its budget; critics were divided on it at the time.

I understand that but I thought it warranted mentioning nonetheless.

I’ll watch the Snyder JL provided he never makes another film.

Both movies sucked, but Schumacher was on point if his game was good. I’d be interested in his cut, but would be skeptical. Superman 4 is just irredeemable it’s so awful.